HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Southwest


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #20501  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2023, 12:51 PM
exit2lef exit2lef is online now
self-important urbanista
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 3,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by combusean View Post
I've never understood why Downtown has so many damn substations. I can't think of another city I've been to that has so many. I've always figured they were a way for APS to landbank with the right of eminent domain.
I think other cities have them, but they're more likely to be underground.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20502  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2023, 6:47 PM
azsunsurfer azsunsurfer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,313
So based on the Metrocenter renderings it seems like that's the end of the line for the lightrail. Seems like a missed opportunity since the bridge was the most expensive part of the project. It just seems like it will be expensive to try and expand and snake the line through the development especially if they have to obtain rights of ways or eminent domain buildings to clear space for a future expansion.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20503  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2023, 8:06 PM
Chestnut1 Chestnut1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 118
I had originally posted this in the low to mid-rise thread, but it seems more appropriate here. I found more information looking at the Fire Dept's review of the project:

Description:
KIVA#: 22-3033
Project Name 360 North Third
Site Address 360 N 3rd Avenue, Phoenix AZ 85003
Zoning DTC ? Van Buren
Site Area (net) 35,250 SF (0.81 acres)
Site Area (gross) 44,650 SF (1.02 acres)
Building Area (gross) Approximately 449,000 GSF
Building Height 365-feet
Number of Stories 31
Unit Count 375
Parking Count 210
Construction Type 1A, Fully Sprinklered

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chestnut1 View Post
Preliminary building plans (PRLM 2300543) were submitted today for "360 NORTH THIRD MIXED-USE TOWER" at 360 N 3rd Ave, which is where this low rise building and adjacent vacant lot to the south are located:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/36...4d-112.0777479

The site is affiliated with JRG Capital Partners out of Chicago http://jrgcapitalpartners.com/index.php, which I find out here: https://azbigmedia.com/real-estate/0...ells-for-3-7m/

And that's all I know...if this is something we talked about already or if someone knows more, please chime in.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20504  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2023, 8:11 PM
PHX31's Avatar
PHX31 PHX31 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: PHX
Posts: 7,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chestnut1 View Post
I had originally posted this in the low to mid-rise thread, but it seems more appropriate here. I found more information looking at the Fire Dept's review of the project:

Description:
KIVA#: 22-3033
Project Name 360 North Third
Site Address 360 N 3rd Avenue, Phoenix AZ 85003
Zoning DTC ? Van Buren
Site Area (net) 35,250 SF (0.81 acres)
Site Area (gross) 44,650 SF (1.02 acres)
Building Area (gross) Approximately 449,000 GSF
Building Height 365-feet
Number of Stories 31
Unit Count 375
Parking Count 210
Construction Type 1A, Fully Sprinklered
Thank you for the follow up. I was wondering how tall approximately 350 units might be. 550ft would be a bit nicer, maybe in the future that will be reached.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20505  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2023, 9:58 PM
ChaseM ChaseM is offline
Chase M
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Peoria, AZ
Posts: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by exit2lef View Post
A true measure of productive building height would subtract floors devoted to parking podiums. Build a 20-story building with four levels of above ground parking? It'll count as a 16-story building. Parking podiums may be a quicker and less expensive way to boost height, but that comes at the expense of the street-level experience and the strength of the urban fabric. I'm all for height, but I'll take shorter buildings with less parking, no parking, or underground parking over any of these podiums.

I agree, California recently did away with minimum parking mandates near public transit as most urban cities such as San Francisco and San Jose were doing away with them. Great article below about California passing legislation to do away with parking minimums. Below are some snippets and a link to the full article.

https://urbanland.uli.org/planning-d...nders-approve/

Michael Manville, associate professor of urban planning at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs, recently presented a paper to UCLA Ziman Center for Real Estate about the benefits of removing parking requirements.

“A sizable [amount of] research literature suggests they undermine housing affordability, encourage driving, and discourage walking and public transit use,” states Manville. “Rolling these requirements back is thus a big change, and essential to meeting California’s affordability and sustainability goals.”

On the front lines of possible pivots to new typologies is Mark Oberholzer, principal, AIA, LEED AP at the Los Angeles office of KTGY. He believes the new law “could become a holy grail of workforce housing near transit.” He notes that his office receives 20 to 25 inquiries a year from owners looking to develop small, mid-block parcels. For many of these, mandating parking also requires building a podium to support it, which is often prohibitively expensive.

And as a designer, he’s excited about the prospect of creating “new people-centric buildings” that help revitalize neighborhoods. Previously, parking-structure podiums and subgrade parking tended to dominate design at the street level, often with a small lobby fronting the garage as the only human-oriented space.

“This is not pedestrian-friendly. It doesn’t contribute to the neighborhood, and it’s simply not exciting. But if your ground floor is now free of parking, you can create welcoming ground-floor units, some facing the street. You can have courtyards accessible on the grade level rather than up in the air. In general, it makes the entire building more open, interesting, and inviting.”


And what about those developers retaining parking? How might these designs change? “One solution is to decouple parking from the building and build more efficient parking in the neighborhood, perhaps down the street from the apartments and perhaps aggregating the needs of more than one building.”

A lot of the historical typologies have a specific character. Prior to parking mandates, attractive California courtyard styles helped define neighborhoods at various scales. But it’s not the architectural style that’s important to unleashing new building types; it’s the freedom from imposed parking.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20506  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2023, 11:25 PM
Warren Peace Warren Peace is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by exit2lef View Post


Agreed. This sounds like a complaint lifted from Next Door.


Nice roast. I'll have to remember that one.

My take comes from my years in law enforcement. When I was younger, I loved the smell. It used to be so much sweeter. These days, the skunkish nature seems more prominent.

But I'll take that smell all day, every day over the stench of urine and feces that also dominates around some downtown areas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20507  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2023, 1:59 AM
exit2lef exit2lef is online now
self-important urbanista
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 3,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren Peace View Post


Nice roast. I'll have to remember that one.

My take comes from my years in law enforcement. When I was younger, I loved the smell. It used to be so much sweeter. These days, the skunkish nature seems more prominent.

But I'll take that smell all day, every day over the stench of urine and feces that also dominates around some downtown areas.
I don't like the shunky aroma either, but I seldom notice it. Even when I do, it's a small price to pay for the greater degree of urban vitality attained when all floors of a building are active with commercial or residentital activity. Having all floors activated also provides more eyes on the street, potentially decreasing the amount of inappropraite urination and defecation in public places.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20508  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2023, 12:21 PM
exit2lef exit2lef is online now
self-important urbanista
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 3,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaseM View Post
I agree, California recently did away with minimum parking mandates near public transit as most urban cities such as San Francisco and San Jose were doing away with them. Great article below about California passing legislation to do away with parking minimums. Below are some snippets and a link to the full article.

https://urbanland.uli.org/planning-d...nders-approve/

Michael Manville, associate professor of urban planning at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs, recently presented a paper to UCLA Ziman Center for Real Estate about the benefits of removing parking requirements.

“A sizable [amount of] research literature suggests they undermine housing affordability, encourage driving, and discourage walking and public transit use,” states Manville. “Rolling these requirements back is thus a big change, and essential to meeting California’s affordability and sustainability goals.”

On the front lines of possible pivots to new typologies is Mark Oberholzer, principal, AIA, LEED AP at the Los Angeles office of KTGY. He believes the new law “could become a holy grail of workforce housing near transit.” He notes that his office receives 20 to 25 inquiries a year from owners looking to develop small, mid-block parcels. For many of these, mandating parking also requires building a podium to support it, which is often prohibitively expensive.

And as a designer, he’s excited about the prospect of creating “new people-centric buildings” that help revitalize neighborhoods. Previously, parking-structure podiums and subgrade parking tended to dominate design at the street level, often with a small lobby fronting the garage as the only human-oriented space.

“This is not pedestrian-friendly. It doesn’t contribute to the neighborhood, and it’s simply not exciting. But if your ground floor is now free of parking, you can create welcoming ground-floor units, some facing the street. You can have courtyards accessible on the grade level rather than up in the air. In general, it makes the entire building more open, interesting, and inviting.”


And what about those developers retaining parking? How might these designs change? “One solution is to decouple parking from the building and build more efficient parking in the neighborhood, perhaps down the street from the apartments and perhaps aggregating the needs of more than one building.”

A lot of the historical typologies have a specific character. Prior to parking mandates, attractive California courtyard styles helped define neighborhoods at various scales. But it’s not the architectural style that’s important to unleashing new building types; it’s the freedom from imposed parking.
Good info. Also, if anyone is tempted to think that eliminating minimum parking requirements is purely an act of California liberalism, it should be noted that Utah is considering the same thing: https://www.sltrib.com/news/2023/01/...re-walks-utah/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20509  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2023, 1:41 PM
combusean's Avatar
combusean combusean is offline
Skyriser
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Newark, California
Posts: 7,218
I wonder if all the commercial lenders will agree with the urban planistas and will finance projects without parking, bundled or otherwise.

Doubtful, but one can dream.

That being said the 360 3rd Ave project above is already underparked for Phoenix like a lot of projects that are in the pipeline. The market doesn't need bureaucratic dictation about parking, it should build what it wants to build.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20510  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2023, 2:45 PM
DesertRay DesertRay is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by combusean View Post
I wonder if all the commercial lenders will agree with the urban planistas and will finance projects without parking, bundled or otherwise.

Doubtful, but one can dream.

That being said the 360 3rd Ave project above is already underparked for Phoenix like a lot of projects that are in the pipeline. The market doesn't need bureaucratic dictation about parking, it should build what it wants to build.
Quite the opposite. This is *undoing* the requirement for parking that the planistas enacted earlier. Now, the market can decide. Want to pay for extra parking? Feel free to propose and pay for it. Methinks that lender will be fine with not building more empty parking, but they'll have the choice.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20511  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2023, 3:37 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,641
Parking requirements in Phoenix aren’t going anywhere keep dreaming

Best make your peace with it
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20512  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2023, 3:55 PM
az_daniel az_daniel is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Central Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obadno View Post
Parking requirements in Phoenix aren’t going anywhere keep dreaming

Best make your peace with it
It is much closer to happening than you think. There is quite a bit of momentum to eliminate parking requirements in Phoenix, and per sources, numerous bills addressing the issue could be going to the state with bipartisan support this year and over the next couple of years. I have some other sources that have told me that there is growing support in the city council, as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20513  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2023, 3:58 PM
combusean's Avatar
combusean combusean is offline
Skyriser
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Newark, California
Posts: 7,218
^ Yeah I was trying to say the same thing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20514  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2023, 4:03 PM
DesertRay DesertRay is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by combusean View Post
The point I was trying to make that this project seems to have lower parking requirements than other projects which is all that matters.

If projects are moving forward with lesser requirements, that's all that matters.
Fair enough. If the guv'ment wants to affirm market flexibility (which is what the articles seem to say), then I'm A-OK with that. My experience is the NIMBYism has an outsized effect as well, but let's see what happens.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20515  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2023, 6:28 PM
MiEncanto MiEncanto is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2022
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertRay View Post
Fair enough. If the guv'ment wants to affirm market flexibility (which is what the articles seem to say), then I'm A-OK with that. My experience is the NIMBYism has an outsized effect as well, but let's see what happens.
I agree that parking minimums in downtown areas aren't necessary because for the most part, developers know their residents will demand a certain amount of parking and will build what is needed. Residents with cars will not choose a place if it doesn't have an option to park; it's not like there are realistic long term street parking solutions in most parts of downtown anymore.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20516  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2023, 4:22 AM
TllrSkyline-01 TllrSkyline-01 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2022
Posts: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiEncanto View Post
I agree that parking minimums in downtown areas aren't necessary because for the most part, developers know their residents will demand a certain amount of parking and will build what is needed. Residents with cars will not choose a place if it doesn't have an option to park; it's not like there are realistic long term street parking solutions in most parts of downtown anymore.
Let the market dictate this. Developers know their target tenants. Working on several project in Northern California where large parking facilities do not make sense, and being scrapped. Many of the parking requirements in AZ are over the top so we end up with empty glorified asphalt lots where kids race and do donuts in their supped up Hondas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20517  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2023, 4:23 AM
TllrSkyline-01 TllrSkyline-01 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2022
Posts: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by PHX31 View Post
Thank you for the follow up. I was wondering how tall approximately 350 units might be. 550ft would be a bit nicer, maybe in the future that will be reached.
Would love to see 550' soon! But we still have plenty of land...happy to see this go forward!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20518  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2023, 4:31 PM
Mr.RE Mr.RE is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 753
WE GOT A SHOUT OUT: https://azbex.com/planning-developme...be-growing-up/

"According to the high-rise enthusiast site skyscraperpage.com, Phoenix has an inventory of 41 buildings of more than 12 floors. Of those, however, only 12 have been built in the 2000s."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20519  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2023, 5:46 PM
phoenixwillrise phoenixwillrise is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 480
Anti Parking Fans

Not sure but maybe some of you like walking around in 120% heat. So you want someone to live in Phoenix without a car or require them to have the car a few blocks from where they live? Do you actually walk long distances in 120% degree heat when you are not working out? Like going to work or to a restaurant? I am in on Light Rail and Electric trolley's but sorry there will never be enough of those to service every area of the city a person would be working or shopping and you would have to have stops like every 1/2 block. Do you presently buy groceries and walk multiple blocks to your condo or apt? Are you people serious?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20520  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2023, 6:08 PM
YourBuddy YourBuddy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Posts: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by phoenixwillrise View Post
Not sure but maybe some of you like walking around in 120% heat. So you want someone to live in Phoenix without a car or require them to have the car a few blocks from where they live? Do you actually walk long distances in 120% degree heat when you are not working out? Like going to work or to a restaurant? I am in on Light Rail and Electric trolley's but sorry there will never be enough of those to service every area of the city a person would be working or shopping and you would have to have stops like every 1/2 block. Do you presently buy groceries and walk multiple blocks to your condo or apt? Are you people serious?

But there is light rail downtown, which is where most people want there to be less car oriented development, where people should be able to walk a couple blocks. It’s funny how the heat is always used as an excuse to not have walkable area, but never the cold. It is very rare for businesses to close in cold cities like Minneapolis when it is extremely cold and people still walk and go to work. Less people walk in extreme conditions and that is never viewed as an excuse to not have less car oriented development. It is just a less busy day, just like it currently is here when the temperatures get that high in car oriented development.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Southwest
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:30 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.